Did Tommy Franks back up Kerry's claims about Vietnam atrocities?

[tibor75]

hard to tell. It's funny how Hannity cuts off Franks when Franks appears to stick up for Kerry. What a [censored]ing tool.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2104693/


Franks: Kerry Was Right About 'Nam! Fox's Sean Hannity didn't look too happy today when now-retired Gen. Tommy Franks backed up John Kerry's old claims of atrocities in Vietnam.... After Hannity had detailed Kerry's charges--which included stories of beheadings and the shooting of innocent civilians--Franks agreed with them. The "things Kerry said are undeniable," the general told his surprised host, explaining that "things didn't go right" in Vietnam. ... P.S.: I don't think Franks was simply refusing to criticize Kerry--he criticized Kerry elsewhere in the same interview (while praising President Bush). The best explanation for why he said it is that it's what he actually thinks. And he was in a good position to know the truth. ... [Quotes are from my notes; will update when the transcript come up in NEXIS] ..

Update: The transcript on NEXIS has Franks saying "I wouldn't say that the things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam." I don't remember an "n't" after the word "would." I think the NEXIS transcript is wrong, though I don't have video against which to check. Certainly the reported "wouldn't" is inconsistent with Franks tone earlier in the interview, the first time Hannity tries to get him to denounce Kerry on the Viet atrocities issue (by playing a tape of Kerry's old anti-war testimony).

HANNITY: What does that mean to you?

FRANKS: I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam. One was the lack of leadership of young people like in -- in John Kerry's position. He was a young officer over there, and I'm not sure that -- that activities like that didn't take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I'm sure that they did take place. ...

At which point Hannity cuts him off with another question. ...

More update: The Hannity/Franks video is available online here (click on "Part 3" of "The General Speaks"). It's ambiguous! Here's my transcript, which does differ from the one in NEXIS:

HANNITY: I mean, raped, murdered, all these things. But he never told names. Does that anger you? I mean, this is the guy now that is the leading candidate for the Democrats.

FRANKS: I don't know. I -- um, I think Vietnam was uh-- I think Vietnam was, uh, was a bad time. I think that what I've learned in my life, Sean, is that it's a heck of a lot easier to protest than it is to step up and, uh, take responsibility for the actions, um, of a unit or for -- or for your ... your own actions.

And so, um, I don't -- I don't like what I saw, uh, but at the same time, I would -- I wouldn't say that ... [pause] the things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam. I ...I ... I'm ... I think that .. I think that things didn't go right in -- in Vietnam. And so...

HANNITY: How do you feel when he came back, he's throwing medals and ribbons and saying that about his fellow soldiers?

It all depends on whether Franks was trying to start a new sentence after the pause. It's a longish pause! You, the reader, make the call. ... My take: The context--especially the "but at the same time" and the emphatic way Franks says "things didn't go right"--tends to support my interpretation. I still think he was backing Kerry up, even to the point of saying the atrocities were "undeniable." The more I replay it the more I agree with myself! ... P.S.: Someone maybe could ask Franks what he meant. He seems like a straight-shooter who wouldn't change his answer. ... 2:19 A.M.

[ekeen]

Kerry himself admitted he hadn't seen a lot of these atrocities committed in Vietnam. When he testified to Congress in 1971 he made blanket statements pulling everyone in to the fray. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want some dorky kid from Boston saying anything on my behalf. Especially if I did a full 13 month tour in Nam.

What damaged Kerry the most during "Winter Soldier" were the fact that many reports of abuse that were supposed to corroborate Kerry's claims turned out to be untrue or falsified.

Many of the veterans, though assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities. A black Marine who agreed to be interviewed was unable to provide details of the outrages he had described at the hearing, but he called the Vietnam War "one huge atrocity" and "a racist plot." He admitted that the question of atrocities had not occurred to him while he was in Vietnam, and that he had been assisted in the preparation of his testimony by a member of the Nation of Islam. But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name. Incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing undoubtedly did occur. We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated. Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a "criminal policy." The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity. It is more likely that this inquiry, like others earlier and later, had primarily political motives and goals.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/in...pic=Historians






Kerry's credibility has been damaged on several fronts and it really is surprising to me that he is using his Vietnam Experience as his ace of spades. He should be running on his voting record and ideas. Clearly we know why he can't do that- it's hard to shake a title such as "most liberal voter in the Senate" isn't it?